Boston, MA 08/21/2114 (wallstreetpr) – Software developer for mobile phones, Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG) had decided to continue its fight against search engine giant Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and others by seeking to review the verdict pronounced by an appeal court in the U.S. on August 15 that reversed the earlier order in favor of Vringo subsidiary.
To Appeal
The company had disclosed that its subsidiary I/P Engine, Inc. would file a review petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals against the split verdict delivered by the court in the case against Google and AOL Inc. The court had reversed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
As per the Federal Circuit’s rules, Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG)’s unit petition for en banc review would be due September 15. The company had filed a motion requesting for a 30-day extension, which means that the petition would be due on or before October 15 in the current year. After getting the required extension, I/P Engine is expected to file its petition for review on or before October 15.
Case Background
Last Friday, the Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit had ruled that the claims made by I/P Engine were not valid and reversed the earlier verdict pronounced on November 6, 2012. Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG) said that a judge in the District Court of Norfolk, Virginia, had given a verdict in favor of I/P Engine in November 2012, against Google, AOL, IAC Search & Media in respect of patent infringement.
The court had upheld the validity of the patents in suit and ruled that the defendants had infringed the patents of I/P Engine. The Judge had also found reasonable the company’s compensation of royalty damages based on running the royalty at the rate of 3.5%. The court had awarded the company a total of about $30.5 million.
However, this was contested by Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and others in the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. I/P Engine were also allowed to recover $17.32 million as an additional amount from the defendants for prejudgment interest and supplemental damages. After getting complete picture, the Appeals Court held the view on August 15 that I/P Engine claim of patent was not valid.
